No-fly zone over Libya

[Palnatoke]

France is "relevant", but it has been eclipsed by Germany and others to an extent that there is a need to remind people that France is still a force to be reckoned with. This includes domestic audiences.


-DA

I readly admit that I am no expert on this, so it's my personal layman's oppinion;

I think that in the eyes of the UK-lead "transatlantic club" France has seriously under performed in the area of foreign&security policy. Interestingly Sarko agrees with this judgement and wants France to become more offensive. It also appears to me that France have invested heavely in millitary hardware to back-up a more activistic foreign policy. And make no mistake the french aren't pacifists.

Within the EU, France has maybe lost some ground and Germany gained some. Germany appears very strong because of the german economy and the weakness of the "mediterranean club" (Spain, Itally, the greek and portugal to mention a few).
But Germany is also a strangely impotent power, Is's very powerfull when it comes to decissions on economy and finance but security&foreign policy they havn't much to show for and are not leading anybody anywhere, as far as I can see.
And I think that this Libya crisis shows, or reitterates, that germany (of interior reasons) is very weak and untrustworthy when it comes to security policy.

On a more "historical level" What I think we are seeing is the slow formation of a European federal state, in this case the slow formation of a common european security policy (in some shape).
It's back and forth and there are camels to swallow...

 

[swerve]

Swerve,

It's nonsense that Brimstones and other air to ground ordinance won't cause CONSIDERABLE collateral damage. The marketing hype aside the things I've seen our weapons do to people when used in populated areas is simply a grim reality of war that cannot be overcome. Sure, it reduces it to a degree. But when you blow up an armored vehicle in a town it's going to create shrapnel, fires and UXO. This will kill civilians.

Also it's not infantry vs infantry. The rebels are nowhere near organized, equipped or trained enough to be considered infantry. Moreover it's not possible to bring them to such a level in a quick enough time without excessive collateral such that Gaddafi's forces won't crush them first. These are mostly armed mobs of civilians recovering and improvising weapons with what amounts to ZERO C2 and no logistics worth mentioning. It's bad. Nothing like the Northern Alliance circa 2001.

It's also not true Gaddafi has lost the ability to move and hold terrain. He has to be careful of course but in that part of the world a Toyota or Datsun Technical is more than enough APC/IFV/Mortar/Rocket/SAM/AAA carrier. That's how he will move and there isn't much you can do about that without a ground component.

-DA

I see you're arguing off the point again.

I said Gaddafi has lost the ability to move men and heavy weapons around easily. I didn't say he'd completely lost the ability to move men & light vehicles.

Yes, a tank hit by a Brimstone doesn't necessarily just die quietly, but nor does it necessarily blow up, strewing exploding ordnance all over the place. Collateral damage is, at worst, much less than that from a 500lb bomb.

Armed mobs? Yes - but Gaddafi also relies on a lot of the same, & his regular army is notoriously disorganised. Remember what Tchadians in Toyotas did to it in the 1980s? And have you noticed how slowly it's taken urban areas, even with overwhelming firepower? Still hasn't taken Misratah, or many smallish towns S & SW of Tripoli - & when it does take a town, it struggles to hold it. If troops are moved on to attack another place, the just-captured town is likely to revert to the rebels.

It seems the army didn't manage to take full control of Ajdabiya, for example (a relatively small place), but took the fringes, & suppressed rebels in the town with artillery & tank fire. When broken on the eastern fringes, the town promptly reverted to rebel control, leaving Gaddafi's troops on the other side of town with no cover & stuck at the end of an exposed supply line. Back to Marsa Brega, chased by rebels . . .

You see? Negate Gaddafi's advantage in heavy weapons, & his forces seem to take little to make them crumble. They don't appear to have the stomach for fighting without that edge.

 

[Grand Danois]

Danish Defence Command has disclosed the target sets and scope of the Danish F-16s.

The Danish F-16s have conducted four atg missions (2-4 jets per mission) the past 24 hours. PGMs have been employed.

In total 26 missions have been flown of which 25 atg and 1 ata.

Initially targets were munitions storage facilities (bunkers) and C2. In the past days targets have shifted to tanks and rocket launchers, threatening the rebels. Up to now 15 tanks and rocket launchers have been hit. Most recently 3 SCUD launchers were taken out.

Target areas have included Tripoli and Adjabiya.

www.defense.gov/news/d20110325slides.pdf

 

[DarthAmerica]

I see you're arguing off the point again.

I said Gaddafi has lost the ability to move men and heavy weapons around easily. I didn't say he'd completely lost the ability to move men & light vehicles.

Yes, a tank hit by a Brimstone doesn't necessarily just die quietly, but nor does it necessarily blow up, strewing exploding ordnance all over the place. Collateral damage is, at worst, much less than that from a 500lb bomb.

Armed mobs? Yes - but Gaddafi also relies on a lot of the same, & his regular army is notoriously disorganised. Remember what Tchadians in Toyotas did to it in the 1980s? And have you noticed how slowly it's taken urban areas, even with overwhelming firepower? Still hasn't taken Misratah, or many smallish towns S & SW of Tripoli - & when it does take a town, it struggles to hold it. If troops are moved on to attack another place, the just-captured town is likely to revert to the rebels.

It seems the army didn't manage to take full control of Ajdabiya, for example (a relatively small place), but took the fringes, & suppressed rebels in the town with artillery & tank fire. When broken on the eastern fringes, the town promptly reverted to rebel control, leaving Gaddafi's troops on the other side of town with no cover & stuck at the end of an exposed supply line. Back to Marsa Brega, chased by rebels . . .

You see? Negate Gaddafi's advantage in heavy weapons, & his forces seem to take little to make them crumble. They don't appear to have the stomach for fighting without that edge.

Swerve, I am not arguing with you. If by arguing off point you meant that I misunderstand you or we disagree then yes. Let me tell you why. When you mentioned blowing up a tank. It is not the size of the explosion. It's the method by which the explosion was caused. Dropping a bomb from 15,000 feet into an urban area is going to cause collateral damage. There is no way to get around that. It doesn't matter if there is no explosion at all. If the ordinance strike somebody on the ground, let's say a small child for instance, inappropriate media coverage is given. What you get is a "strategic lieutenant" situation. By that I mean one warrior acting inappropriately by choice or by no fault of his own, can cause a situation to spiral out of control due to public perception. The nature of airpower increases the probability of something like this by orders of magnitude. Also, when a tank explodes depending on the ammunition, onboard fuel and other factors the explosion can be quite spectacular. Let's say it's an older Soviet model and the turret comes off. It's got a land somewhere. If it happens to land on a bunch of children or people standing on the street, then you have a media problem.*

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZAnYYj9orQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]YouTube - Javelin shoulder fired missle vs T-72 Russian tank[/nomedia]

Consider that is a man portable anti-armor weapon fired from a stationary person at a stationary tank. Did you notice the blast effects? Would you feel comfortable standing on the street during an engagement such as that? Now imaging the setting is urban, the firing platform a jet and the tank is moving. Collateral is not just about the size of the bang, it's where the bang happens! Theres so much more
to this trust me. Do not be lured in and tempted by the marketing hype weapons manufacturers claim about collateral. Bottom line war around civilians=collateral. It's a terrain problem.

With regard to Gaddafi's troops. They are certainly not up to western standards but just by looking I can tell they are leaps and bounds ahead of the rebels. It's also important that when we say, "rebels", we keep in mind we aren't talking about some homogenous group. They are quite disorganized and only united in the desire to get rid of Gaddafi. Will isn't enough I'm afraid. We also need to be very careful when we say a town is in "rebel control". The media tends to say that as a way of drama. Just because you have 20-50 guys with machine guns in the streets hardly means control.

In case you can't tell my instincts and professional assessment of this situation is that air power is NOT APPROPRIATE to achieve the STATED objectives of protecting civilians nor is it sufficient to give the rebels enough of an advantage to defeat Gaddafi. Please no one misunderstand me and infer that I'm saying Gaddafi will win. If he loses I think that result will be coincidental.

-DA

 

[Sampanviking]

No, it's because they wanted the coalition to attack. Think about it, Russia is interested in reasserting itself and some of the old Soviet Sphere of influence as the buffer they need for security and the more distractions the US and Western Europe get into the better. Think OIF and OEF. The only reason the Russians could confidently invade Georgia the way they did it because the US Army was in no position to challenge it. The drawn into another conflict simply increases the duration of time Russia has to consolidate it's gains before the US returns it's national security focus back on Moscow.

The Chinese are not going to make any provocative moves towards the US without a reason. They also will not endorse UN interference in an internal matter of another nation. Especially a nation dealing with internal security issues. The Chinese have not exactly been kind to anti-government protest so it would be rather hypocritical of them to rebuke Gaddafi. More than anything, even the US Navy, the PRC fears internal troubles which are it's greatest threat. It needs a free hand to deal with these kinds of internal matters as it sees fit and practices what it preaches.

That's the interest of the Russians and Chinese.

-DA

Personally, I think you have to look at the baleful influence of the House of Saud behind much of this. King Abdullah and Colonel Gadaffi are not on friendly relations and the pride of princes is of course legendary.

I have long suspected that much of the huff and puff about UN resolutions was for public consumption only and that Gadaffi had negotiated his survival in return for oil concessions early in the uprising, ie just before he counter attacked and sent the rebels in full rout.

In the original script, it seems likely that the resolution was supposed to go down by veto, but Abdullah was not prepared to accept that and so worked on the veto brigade to get them to abstain.

This is why it has been so disorganised at onset.

 

[Waylander]

I am not going to dispute that hitting targets in an urbanized area with PGMs always faces the danger of civilian casualties which may very well lead to a spectacular political problem.

But the Javelin video is of a rigged dog and pony show.
A tank is not going to explode like this. A T-72 getting a hit into the ammunition caroussel may throw it's hat but it will not explode like this. Not when hit by an ATGM nor when hit by a tank round.
A LGB is obviously a different matter...

 

[Feanor]

Personally, I think you have to look at the baleful influence of the House of Saud behind much of this. King Abdullah and Colonel Gadaffi are not on friendly relations and the pride of princes is of course legendary.

I have long suspected that much of the huff and puff about UN resolutions was for public consumption only and that Gadaffi had negotiated his survival in return for oil concessions early in the uprising, ie just before he counter attacked and sent the rebels in full rout.

In the original script, it seems likely that the resolution was supposed to go down by veto, but Abdullah was not prepared to accept that and so worked on the veto brigade to get them to abstain.

This is why it has been so disorganised at onset.

You think Saudi Arabia talked Russia and China into not vetoing the resolution?

 

[Sampanviking]

You think Saudi Arabia talked Russia and China into not vetoing the resolution?

That is precisely what I think and you can add India and Brazil to the list as well. These countries and South Africa said they would not support a no fly zone, straight after Cameron first called for it, while attending a group (the three of them form one of these acronym groups the name of which I cant remember off hand) conference in Delhi at the time.

Also remember that Cameron was in the Gulf when he made the call and that the Saudi writ runs large through the GCC and from that has considerable influence over the Arab League.

I can't pretend to know what exactly went down in all cases, but I do know that you should not underestimate the pull of a country with both the worlds largest Oil Reserves and one of its biggest Sovereign wealth funds and I do know that a Senior Chinese Foreign Ministry delegation was in Riyadh at the time of the vote, signing a multi billion dollar deal for a new Oil Refinery on the Saudi Gulf coast.

I assume everyone is aware just how much Abdullah and Gadaffi loathe each other? I know that Cyrenica (East Libya) is the old homeland of the former Libyan Kings, but I suspect that Gadaffi calling the rebels Al-Quidea was as much an insult to the Saudi's as anything else.

Yes I see Abdullah's puffy little paws all over it!

 

[kato]

It seems the army didn't manage to take full control of Ajdabiya, for example (a relatively small place), but took the fringes, & suppressed rebels in the town with artillery & tank fire.

No such thing as "control" down there. See also Misrata, claimed to be under rebel control with loyalist snipers taking out rebels that show their head. Or Benghazi for that matter - the leader of that "national council" went underground four weeks ago because the supposedly rebel-controlled city wasn't safe for him with a bounty of 250 grand hanging over his head.

(the three of them form one of these acronym groups the name of which I cant remember off hand)

IBSA.

I suspect that Gadaffi calling the rebels Al-Quidea was as much an insult to the Saudi's as anything else.

The rebels are involved with AQ.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
and in particular
http://gulftoday.ae/portal/b49b7878-4933-4034-9040-ae3f391787e3.aspx

Of course they're not exclusively AQ. Or junkies. Or whatever Gaddafi claims this week. There's also the monarchists with a cousin of the king sitting in the council, the former Gaddafi cronies grabbing for power (four or five in the council), and the various groups that each tried to overthrow or kill Gaddafi at some point in the past 40 years.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I am not going to dispute that hitting targets in an urbanized area with PGMs always faces the danger of civilian casualties which may very well lead to a spectacular political problem.

But the Javelin video is of a rigged dog and pony show.
A tank is not going to explode like this. A T-72 getting a hit into the ammunition caroussel may throw it's hat but it will not explode like this. Not when hit by an ATGM nor when hit by a tank round.
A LGB is obviously a different matter...

Yes Waylander, certain Soviet era tanks will explode like this. They don't have ammo blowout compartments and will "brew up" and even explode into pieces to include tossing turrets, hatches, vision blocks burning fuel and ammo for tens of meters.

-DA

 

[Feanor]

That is precisely what I think and you can add India and Brazil to the list as well. These countries and South Africa said they would not support a no fly zone, straight after Cameron first called for it, while attending a group (the three of them form one of these acronym groups the name of which I cant remember off hand) conference in Delhi at the time.

Also remember that Cameron was in the Gulf when he made the call and that the Saudi writ runs large through the GCC and from that has considerable influence over the Arab League.

I can't pretend to know what exactly went down in all cases, but I do know that you should not underestimate the pull of a country with both the worlds largest Oil Reserves and one of its biggest Sovereign wealth funds and I do know that a Senior Chinese Foreign Ministry delegation was in Riyadh at the time of the vote, signing a multi billion dollar deal for a new Oil Refinery on the Saudi Gulf coast.

I assume everyone is aware just how much Abdullah and Gadaffi loathe each other? I know that Cyrenica (East Libya) is the old homeland of the former Libyan Kings, but I suspect that Gadaffi calling the rebels Al-Quidea was as much an insult to the Saudi's as anything else.

Yes I see Abdullah's puffy little paws all over it!

What could they have offered Russia or India?

EDIT: It's interesting that Russian General HQ has said that the no-fly zone hasn't produced the necessary results, in the sense that it hasn't given the rebels enough of an advantage to turn the tide, and in the sense that it's come too late. There also are claims that Russian intelligence has uncovered plans for a land operation in Libya in April-May.

http://lenta.ru/news/2011/03/26/fail/

 

[DarthAmerica]

I've tried to scream that as loud as I can but it seems the allure of air power has seduced people once again...

...we must not forget history. Or the true objectives here...

-DA

 

[Feanor]

I've tried to scream that as loud as I can but it seems the allure of air power has seduced people once again...

...we must not forget history. Or the true objectives here...

-DA

Well Russian General Staff agrees with you. But it does seem that the balance is tipping once again. The whole thing reminds me of a see-saw.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well Russian General Staff agrees with you. But it does seem that the balance is tipping once again. The whole thing reminds me of a see-saw.

Feanor,

We've got to look long term. The west and allies have had absolute space, air and sea dominance since day one of OEF/OIF and still the wars rage. These are wars being waged with competent modern infantry with the latest and greatest technology possible. What put the Libyan rebels in a better position? It's the definition of insanity don't you think?

Of course unless we consider the real objectives.

-DA

 

[Palnatoke]

It's interesting that Russian General HQ has said that the no-fly zone hasn't produced the necessary results, in the sense that it hasn't given the rebels enough of an advantage to turn the tide, and in the sense that it's come too late. There also are claims that Russian intelligence has uncovered plans for a land operation in Libya in April-May.

Lenta.ru:  ìèðå: Ãëàâà ðîññèéñêîãî Ãåíøòàáà ñ÷åë âîåííóþ îïåðàöèþ â Ëèâèè ïðîâàëüíîé

Yeah.
We won't and didn't see Ghadafi's core forces "melt away" in the face of air bombings because Ghadafi's power and the alligence of his core army is not based on his money, person or near familly. But rather Clan structured alliences.
So, in my view, we have a civil war between Ghadafi loyal clan like structures and rebel clan like structures and that provides the motivation for the young men to get killed.

And eventhough Ghadafi's army isn't much of an army, neither do the rebels look like crack troops. So it can take a while for them to club each other down.

I really hope that "they" are planning for a land intervention to force through the only viable end to the coalition operation: Regime Change.

 

[Waylander]

Yes Waylander, certain Soviet era tanks will explode like this. They don't have ammo blowout compartments and will "brew up" and even explode into pieces to include tossing turrets, hatches, vision blocks burning fuel and ammo for tens of meters.

-DA

Well, I have seen no photo or report of such explosions. Of the hundreds of T-55s and T-72s which got destroyed during ODS and OIF did not explode like this when hit by main gun or ATGM fire.

Nor for example did T-55s and T-62s in the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur war.

So I have my doubts that a Brimstone which is in effect a Hellfire on steroids has this effect when it hits.
Not that the flying turret or the spreading fire you mentioned can't become a problem.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well, I have seen no photo or report of such explosions. Of the hundreds of T-55s and T-72s which got destroyed during ODS and OIF did not explode like this when hit by main gun or ATGM fire.

Nor for example did T-55s and T-62s in the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur war.

So I have my doubts that a Brimstone which is in effect a Hellfire on steroids has this effect when it hits.
Not that the flying turret or the spreading fire you mentioned can't become a problem.

Waylander,

Not to nitpick however If you are relying on reports in the media, documentaries or any other such OSINT/AARs then I'm not aware of any that detail the various thousands of Soviet and other armored vehicles struck by ATGM/Bombs. That would be many many accounts and definitely not all inclusive. I assure you that you can explode a tank this way. Moreover, when the actual ATGM/Bomb hits the tank even if the tank survives, which happens sometimes, the fragmentation caused by the warhead is considerable. AT MINIMUM antenna, pintle mounted machineguns, rocks, parts of the weapon ect will become local missiles and be quite lethal. I simply can't emphasize enough the danger of collateral associated with aerial bombardment. Also remember, missiles can and often do "miss". We aren't talking about carpet bombing without regard to civilians here. Just that one CAS sortie that makes the news is all it takes! My point being that the only way to do this and be reasonably sure is when targets are in open uninhabited areas.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe9x6xdwof0&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]YouTube - Iraq T55 tank destroyed by British forces the Gulf war Desert Storm 1991[/nomedia]

In closing, let me be clear. Do I think the coalition CAS sorties are deadly? Yes! Indeed I do. It's just that when you market your campaign as limited, fought from the air, primarily no fly zone and intended to protect civilians it arms the enemy with ready made propaganda and turns every sortie into a potential strategic lieutenant scenario.

To be fair and clear on where I stand, I think the entire mission is a bad idea driven by myopic political and financial objectives that could possibly come back to bite us pretty badly. Will get the tactical victories no doubt but the strategic issues are another matter...

-DA

 

[Haavarla]

A vid released by RnoAF from one if the missions.
I think its an Libyan Tank getting dismantled..

Norske fly i flere bombeoppdrag i Libya - Nyheter - Innenriks - Aftenposten.no

 

[STURM]

To be fair and clear on where I stand, I think the entire mission is a bad idea driven by myopic political and financial objectives that could possibly come back to bite us pretty badly. Will get the tactical victories no doubt but the strategic issues are another matter...-DA

This not the first time and most probably nor the last time, this has happened. Like in Afghanistan and Iraq, getting in was relatively easy, getting out and achieving the political goals was a very different matter. Not to mention the price ordinary Libyan citizens, caught in a situation which is beyond their control, will have to pay.

Guncam showing an MBT being destroyed. There's an awful lot of smoke and almost no flames from the first MBT unlike the second one.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc7W17_S1y8&feature=relmfu"]YouTube - Night video of UK Tornado jets bombing Gaddafi battle tanks[/nomedia]


Eastern front Stuka tank attacks

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccOXrfBZoLE&playnext=1&list=PLA63F4ED7CC15F9AA"]YouTube - german WW2 STUKA ju87g shooting T34, T35, A9/10 cruiser tanks with anti-tank gun combat camera video[/nomedia]


1st Gulf war guncam

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7qX8LNRSOM"]YouTube - F-15E Gun Camera[/nomedia]

 

[Feanor]

Of course unless we consider the real objectives.

-DA

What do you think those are?